Timmy is learning about the war in which much of Europe will be reduce

A,B,C and D conveys the wrong meaning if you think about it.

Simple past is required here. The answer choice E is the best.

Hi Aditya, the reason why we dont need a past perfect tense here is that 2 events - Timmy learning and war that already happened, have no bearing on each other. If we have to define past perfect tense usage, it is used only for 2 related events where sequencing is essential. In this sentence, sequence is essential, obviously war happened before Timmy learned about the war, but event wise these 2 dont relate to each other, even if Timmy decided not to learn, the war would still have happened (because it already happened in the past and Timmy was not a deciding factor to it)

Hope this explains

Shouldn't the answer be B here? War happened earlier and then Timmy learned about it. As per OA, looks like both could be used with same time frame(tenses). Please suggest.

Why should we have to accept such a war has already occurred? In fact, much of Europe has not been reduced to rubble either in the WWI or in WW2. On the contrary, Europe emerged stronger from these wars.
Therefore, IMO, such a war is yet to occur and hence a future tense is the correct tense to describe such an eventuality.

On the basis of logical tense alone one may dump B, C and E. D is dubious and suspect. It is only hunching that Europe must have been reduced to rubble. Therefore A.

Very interesting thought but if you say that such a war is yet to occur why would the author use -- is learning about the war? Wouldn't there be an indication such as "a probable war".

We understand that there has been no such war in the past. Nor is there one now. Hence, the only possibility is a future war. Aren’t most of our studies whether in history or in astrophysics are some way related to our gaining an insight into the future? Let's look at this; Theses days I am learning seriously about numismatics since I will want to be a collector when I go on a global tour two years hence. Alternatively, as in - I am dreaming of the day when INR will be equal to USD-. Are these expressions not acceptable? Except for the use of 'will', there is no other future - tense marker and I feel any further future - marker may render it redundant. My single observation is that it is wrong to fold up saying that such things should be only referring to past time and not necessarily to present or future.

Hello,

Could someone specify why B is incorrect?

Thank you!

Hi KHow, B uses past perfect tense (had been reduced). When two events happened in the past, past perfect is used to depict the earlier of the two events.

Here, Europe reducing to rubble clearly did not happen before the war and hence, past perfect is not justified.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses Past perfect tense, its application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.

But isn't the comparison between Timmy learning and Europe being reduced to rubble? The comparison doesn't seem to be about the war. And in the case of Timmy learning, it is clearly occurring after Europe had been reduced to rubble.

Please correct me if I am understanding this wrong.

Hi Prar11, I wouldn't really call it a comparison sentence.

Notice that the modifier in which.... modifies war.

So, the construct is:

Timmy learned about the war.

Which war?

The war in which much of Europe was reduced to rubble.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.